Tim Goodwin is the Director of Ecology Solutions.
As one of the leading UK ecologists in planning I was dismayed, once again, to read the sector’s reaction to the Government’s proposed changes to the Habitats Regulations via the Levelling Up, Housing and Regeneration Bill.
Rather than properly consider the matter, immediate press releases from the Office of Environmental Protection, together with the usual cohort of the RSPB, the Wildlife Trust, and the Chartered Institute for Ecologists and Environmental Managers (CIEEM) – to name but a few – have described the move as a regression in the law, a backwards step and a weakening of environmental protection. However, if one looks objectively at the evidence nothing could be further from the truth.
The issue of nutrient neutrality has brought housing development to a standstill across swathes of the UK. Therefore, why wouldn’t a sensible Government look for pragmatic and appropriate measures to overcome this impasse? One might think that the Government’s statutory advisors, Natural England, together with the aforementioned bodies would solve the problem. But their slavish adherence to the incorrect application of the precautionary principle, namely aiming for certainty with zero risk, is not actually achievable either in science, or indeed required by the prevailing legislation (the habitats regulations).
So, first, what is the problem and, second, from where does it originate? Put simply, nutrient neutrality stems from the pollution of important and biodiverse watercourses due to high levels of nutrients – primarily phosphates and nitrates – which leads to algal blooms, toxic levels to some key species and huge oxygen demands within the riverine system.
The major input of nutrients is primarily due to agricultural practices driven by previous European agricultural incentive schemes. The other major source arises from the lack of investment by water companies, with many sewerage treatment works now not fit for purpose. Add in ever increasing requirements for water abstraction and – until recently – any coordinated or consistent policy objectives, and the environment is under pressure yet again.
However, rather than apply the commonsense approach of polluter pays, the conservation lobby has turned its attention, yet again, to an easier and familiar target: housebuilders. This is despite the contribution of nutrients from this source being in low single figures in terms of the percentage contribution. After near on 18 months of debate, the best position reached is to seek payment from housebuilders in order to pay for high intensity agriculture to be taken out of production.
In effect, this is a bizarre situation of paying the polluter to stop polluting – yet there is not a single squeak about this from the Office of Environmental Protection, the Wildlife Trusts or the plethora of other environmental protection organisations. In this vacuum of common sense, it is only right that central government should take the reins.
So what steps has the Government taken? Well, you would be wrong to answer that question by starting with the proposed changes to the legislation. It was much more important to put in place measures to reduce significantly the two key sources of nutrient input to the system.
The Government has already put in train changes to agricultural practices and provided a suite of policy changes and guidance for water companies. Having recently been commissioned and just completed a peer review of one of the water company’s statutory water resources management plans, I can confirm firsthand that those policy objectives are already bearing fruit with significant changes to the content and direction of those plans. It is in that context that the Government has brought forward legislative changes to the workings of the Habitat Regulations, which are small in scale and targeted to (and relevant to) the specifics of houseb building, at a time when there is a national shortage.
In other words, the Government has stuck to the important principle of ‘the polluter pays’ , whilst delivering a sound ecological approach to protecting the environment and facilitating much needed new homes.
So as an ecologist and committed environmentalist, why do I welcome the proposed changes? Four key elements persuade me.
First, the proposed changes to the legislation are in keeping with both the base objectives and the spirit and practice of the Habitats Regulations as a whole. The legislation and associated case law makes clear that short-term and reversible effects do not constitute an effect on integrity (the key test).
Second, the Government’s proposed changes are, as set out above, a three-pronged approach. They are not, as many commentators have advanced, simply a weakening of the legislation to allow more houses to be built. Ecologically, it’s a sound approach and deals with the root cause which will, in turn, provide significant improvements to water quality and quantity, while allowing much needed housing in these areas to be delivered without further delay.
Third, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that the small increases in nutrient loading from new houses will have a long-term effect or that such effects are not fully reversible, as the improvements arising from the Government’s approach to Agriculture and Water Companies, effectively come online.
Finally, the overall approach and record of this Government has been squarely set on protecting the environment. The Environment Act paves the way for a whole new approach and by the end of this year, further regulations in order to enact Section Six on biodiversity will bring into play ‘Biodiversity Net Gain’, not as a policy objective, but as statute; a significant but unique step to halt the overall decline in biodiversity.
Overall, the Government’s approach to protecting and reversing years of harm should be welcomed and supported rather than maligned. These latest proposed changes should not be seen as a retrograde step or a desire to weaken the Habitat Regulations, but seen as a pragmatic and ecologically sound approach to the current impasse. In effect, ecological common sense.
Tim Goodwin is the Director of Ecology Solutions.
As one of the leading UK ecologists in planning I was dismayed, once again, to read the sector’s reaction to the Government’s proposed changes to the Habitats Regulations via the Levelling Up, Housing and Regeneration Bill.
Rather than properly consider the matter, immediate press releases from the Office of Environmental Protection, together with the usual cohort of the RSPB, the Wildlife Trust, and the Chartered Institute for Ecologists and Environmental Managers (CIEEM) – to name but a few – have described the move as a regression in the law, a backwards step and a weakening of environmental protection. However, if one looks objectively at the evidence nothing could be further from the truth.
The issue of nutrient neutrality has brought housing development to a standstill across swathes of the UK. Therefore, why wouldn’t a sensible Government look for pragmatic and appropriate measures to overcome this impasse? One might think that the Government’s statutory advisors, Natural England, together with the aforementioned bodies would solve the problem. But their slavish adherence to the incorrect application of the precautionary principle, namely aiming for certainty with zero risk, is not actually achievable either in science, or indeed required by the prevailing legislation (the habitats regulations).
So, first, what is the problem and, second, from where does it originate? Put simply, nutrient neutrality stems from the pollution of important and biodiverse watercourses due to high levels of nutrients – primarily phosphates and nitrates – which leads to algal blooms, toxic levels to some key species and huge oxygen demands within the riverine system.
The major input of nutrients is primarily due to agricultural practices driven by previous European agricultural incentive schemes. The other major source arises from the lack of investment by water companies, with many sewerage treatment works now not fit for purpose. Add in ever increasing requirements for water abstraction and – until recently – any coordinated or consistent policy objectives, and the environment is under pressure yet again.
However, rather than apply the commonsense approach of polluter pays, the conservation lobby has turned its attention, yet again, to an easier and familiar target: housebuilders. This is despite the contribution of nutrients from this source being in low single figures in terms of the percentage contribution. After near on 18 months of debate, the best position reached is to seek payment from housebuilders in order to pay for high intensity agriculture to be taken out of production.
In effect, this is a bizarre situation of paying the polluter to stop polluting – yet there is not a single squeak about this from the Office of Environmental Protection, the Wildlife Trusts or the plethora of other environmental protection organisations. In this vacuum of common sense, it is only right that central government should take the reins.
So what steps has the Government taken? Well, you would be wrong to answer that question by starting with the proposed changes to the legislation. It was much more important to put in place measures to reduce significantly the two key sources of nutrient input to the system.
The Government has already put in train changes to agricultural practices and provided a suite of policy changes and guidance for water companies. Having recently been commissioned and just completed a peer review of one of the water company’s statutory water resources management plans, I can confirm firsthand that those policy objectives are already bearing fruit with significant changes to the content and direction of those plans. It is in that context that the Government has brought forward legislative changes to the workings of the Habitat Regulations, which are small in scale and targeted to (and relevant to) the specifics of houseb building, at a time when there is a national shortage.
In other words, the Government has stuck to the important principle of ‘the polluter pays’ , whilst delivering a sound ecological approach to protecting the environment and facilitating much needed new homes.
So as an ecologist and committed environmentalist, why do I welcome the proposed changes? Four key elements persuade me.
First, the proposed changes to the legislation are in keeping with both the base objectives and the spirit and practice of the Habitats Regulations as a whole. The legislation and associated case law makes clear that short-term and reversible effects do not constitute an effect on integrity (the key test).
Second, the Government’s proposed changes are, as set out above, a three-pronged approach. They are not, as many commentators have advanced, simply a weakening of the legislation to allow more houses to be built. Ecologically, it’s a sound approach and deals with the root cause which will, in turn, provide significant improvements to water quality and quantity, while allowing much needed housing in these areas to be delivered without further delay.
Third, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that the small increases in nutrient loading from new houses will have a long-term effect or that such effects are not fully reversible, as the improvements arising from the Government’s approach to Agriculture and Water Companies, effectively come online.
Finally, the overall approach and record of this Government has been squarely set on protecting the environment. The Environment Act paves the way for a whole new approach and by the end of this year, further regulations in order to enact Section Six on biodiversity will bring into play ‘Biodiversity Net Gain’, not as a policy objective, but as statute; a significant but unique step to halt the overall decline in biodiversity.
Overall, the Government’s approach to protecting and reversing years of harm should be welcomed and supported rather than maligned. These latest proposed changes should not be seen as a retrograde step or a desire to weaken the Habitat Regulations, but seen as a pragmatic and ecologically sound approach to the current impasse. In effect, ecological common sense.